May 25, 2014

MICKEY KAUS: Profile In Spinelessness. “In other words, after criticism from his underfunded challenger, Cantor ditches the ENLIST act. Then after a disapproving sentence from activist Frank Sharry, he tacks back and unditches it.”

As much as I blame the Democrats for amnesty, it makes no sense to focus on them. All of their constituencies support it. Only the Republican House can block it, so it makes sense to target our energies on them.

BTW, if you think immigration reform represents a new interest of Mickey's, then you haven't been a very diligent reader of his blog for the past 14 years.

The disastrous impact of unchecked illegal immigration from Mexico has been one of his principal leitmotifs since his earliest days. He ranks with Steve Sailer and Victor Davis Hanson in this regard, and he's better than either of those guys when it comes to breaking down the political (and legislative) state of play.

The primary contest between Cantor and challenger Dave Brat will determine the fate of the immigration bill. If Cantor survives, he and Boehner will bring an immigration bill to the floor (which will include amnesty, make no mistake) and it will pass.

If you believe another immigration amnesty would be a disaster for our country, back Dave Brat now.

Notice how Kaus focuses everything on the GOP? Doesn't seem to focus much on the Democrats who are eager for amnesty. It is becoming a bit of an obsession. Some professionals have terms for it, transference, etc. The Obamacare supporter, the Clintonite, seems to have found a new joy in immigration only with regards to the GOP.

Most of us here already know that the Democrats are the enemy of the country and Constitution, and as long as they draw a breath they will try to destroy both. Amnesty is one of many ways they are trying. The leadership of the Institutional Republican Party desperately wants to join with them.

Those who love the country have absolutely no influence with the Democrats by any legal means; and bloody little with the Institutional Republicans, so it makes no sense to even talk to or at the Democrats.

What I find interesting is the blinders the Institutional Republicans are wearing so that they can claim in effect on one hand; "Vote for us or the evil Democrats will do what we intend to do if we get past the election.", and on the other that they expect us to vote for them after they do what the Democrats want to do if they try to get away with it before the election. Nowhere in their calculations is the concept that maybe, just maybe micturating on their base and destroying the country is not the best path.

In theory, IF we actually have elections in November, and IF the vote counts are marginally honest; the polling indicates that this is going to be a bigger anti-Democrat [not pro-Republican, but anti-Democrat] wave than 2010. That is three levels of conditional statement, I grant; two 'ifs' and polling.

But if any of the three fail to come through, the last hope of a constitutional Republic are gone and other means of ruling are in play by the Left. So if we wish to avoid that we have to assume that wave will happen.

If we have that wave, there is no way we are going to lose the Institutional Republican control of the House, and will probably gain a seat or two [gains at this point are limited because there are very few seats left held by either party which are not gerrymandered into personal property of the occupant].

In the Senate, IF the Institutionals do not sabotage the election by passing Amnesty and Permanent Open Borders, we will probably end up with 52 or 53 for a 2-3 vote majority. Best case, even if we go into fantasy territory and pick up a couple more, we will not have an override capability. And there is the fact that there are about 6 Institutional Republican Senators who frequently vote with the Democrats on anything critical. So the best case requires a leadership that will fight hard against the Democrats.

Boehner, Cantor, and McConnell are some of the main obstacles to the Institutionals standing and fighting against the Democrats on any issue. They never attack the Left with anywhere near the venom and visceral hatred that they reserve for Conservatives and the TEA Party. They are members of the same club.

IF Conservatives and the TEA Party, at the very least, withhold their support and votes for those three, Boehner, Cantor, and McConnell; or actively contribute to and vote for their Democrat opponents .... it will not change the balance of power between the parties in either House if Boehner, Cantor, or McConnell are defeated. The Republicans will still have control of both.

BUT, they will have new leadership, one that stands a chance [not a certainty, the Vichy runs strong in the Institutionals] of using that majority to resist the Democrats. A Senate led by McConnell will do no different than with him as Minority Leader. An unchastened House with Boehner and Cantor in charge .... will do as they are promising to do and collaborate with the Democrats.

If the Institutionals have to come up with a new leadership, they will have two choices. They can realize that they cannot work at deliberately pi****g off a big section of the party, which causes them to lose their cushy jobs; and then start fighting the Left. Or they can decide that they will chase out anyone more conservative than Susan Collins and achieve a pure minority status before they formally merge with the Democrats.

The first choice gives us a chance at saving a Republic. The second will at least give clarity for what is to come.

Well Subotai, then you offer a mindset which bizarrely thinks the only way one can change anything is to attack Republicans? Sounds like a recipe for disaster. When one plays a game in sports, or engages in combat, etc., you cannot IGNORE the most vocal, vivid, strident opposition.

It's possible to be a Democrat and opposed to amnesty, because new waves of immigrants compete with those already here, driving down wages.This used to be the position of the United Farm Workers under Caesar Chavez, and he was correct.The Democrats are selling out their constituents for (more) votes, the establishment Republicans are selling out their constituents for money.Between those two groups, we only have influence over Republicans (at least, in theory).

As much as I blame the Democrats for amnesty, it makes no sense to focus on them. All of their constituencies support it. Only the Republican House can block it, so it makes sense to target our energies on them.

BTW, if you think immigration reform represents a new interest of Mickey's, then you haven't been a very diligent reader of his blog for the past 14 years.

The disastrous impact of unchecked illegal immigration from Mexico has been one of his principal leitmotifs since his earliest days. He ranks with Steve Sailer and Victor Davis Hanson in this regard, and he's better than either of those guys when it comes to breaking down the political (and legislative) state of play.

Ignoring the Democrat folly to target the Republicans is a classic strategy. Often used to divide the opposition of the Democratic Party. And no, if Kaus was going after Pelosi, Reid, Obama with the same vigor on Amnesty, perhaps he would have more credibility - or even help matters. The Democrats are pushing this wagon on amnesty, the source of the problem.

Nope, nope, not buying it. If you are a Democrat and you understand how wrong amnesty is, you've got no business blaming the GOP. Democrats have been beating the drum for open borders at least since Kennedy gave us our current immigration mess. If Kaus is a Democrat he has voted again and again for the amnesty true believers. If he wants to remove the speck of amnesty from the GOP's eyes, he should start with the amnesty beam in his own party.

Wow Getti - you mean you cannot talk about the AUTHOR of the SUBJECT? And you don't know who I am. You have no clue. You just called me more names, in a tired manner. Rather pathetic. I am all for better candidates, but the fashion is cheap. And Kaus is obsessing about the GOP, while ignoring the very Obama Administration which looks criminal in many ways, including immigration.

You mean the guy who's been outspoken on immigration policy from a "no amnesty" position for at least a decade now? You mean at a time when the Senate has already passed an amnesty bill and the only thing stopping it from passage is a subset of the House GOP? I can't imagine why would he focus on the House GOP leadership.

InstaPundit is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.